Since the first international T20 game was played on February 17, 2005, runs and wickets have occurred in ODIs at the rate of 242 runs and eight wickets per 50 overs. In international T20 games runs and wickets have occurred at the rate of 146 runs and seven wickets per 20 overs. These figures are based on ODIs involving only the top eight Test-playing nations (excluding Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the Associate teams).

As a point of comparison, since February 17, 2005, it has taken 107.3 overs on average for ten wickets to fall in a Test, at a cost of 328 runs. Since the first international T20 game, batsmen have been dismissed once every 18 balls in T20, every 37 balls in ODIs, and every 65 balls in Tests. Since all rules except for over quotas and the length of innings are identical across formats, this is a useful baseline.

Completed innings in each format

Format

Balls faced

Runs

Wickets

T20

120

146.5

6.7

ODI

300

241.5

8.2

Tests

645

327.6

10.0

One of the claims about T20 is that it produces a greater proportion of exciting finishes. This is conventionally taken to mean that more games are decided in the last over, or that the outcome is still uncertain in a larger proportion of T20 games until much later in the contest than in the other formats.

This view has its limits. The shorter the format, the greater the effect of each individual delivery, and therefore the greater the potential of each individual delivery to influence the state of the game. By this logic, a five-over game will be more "exciting" than a 20-over game. But are T20 games on average closer than ODIs or Tests? Test matches are not zero-sum games - they allow a third result, the draw. A draw does not imply parity, despite the implicit claim to this effect in the ICC's Test ratings. A draw is merely an inconclusive game. Let's set Test cricket aside for now.

The margins of victory in T20 and ODI cricket are revealing. Successful chases have been more frequent in ODI cricket than in T20; chasing teams win about 8% more often in ODIs. Nearly one in three T20 internationals has been decided by fewer than 7 runs (that is, by a margin of one hit) or in the final over, while only one in seven ODIs is decided in this way.

Category

T20

ODI

Total Results

230

703

Wins by six runs or less

26

24

Wins with six or less balls remaining

42

69

Wins with 10% of balls remaining

64

210

Wins with 10% of average score or less (15 or less for T20, 25 or less for ODIs)

51

52

Successful run chase

100

355

Successful defense of score

123

339

Tied games

7

9

Eighty-five per cent of T20 chases are completed with five or more wickets to spare. The corresponding figure for ODIs is 70%. In an earlier post I showed that compared to T20, a larger share of the bowling in ODIs is done by good bowlers. The fact that chases are less successful in T20 than in ODIs, combined with the above facts, suggests that the practice of picking bits-and-pieces players who can hit the long ball in T20 may hurt chasing teams.

This is also apparent from the fact that lower-order batsmen seem to be able to steer a higher share of chases in ODIs than they do in T20s. However, keep in mind that the rules of dismissal and the rules for allotting runs are identical in T20 and ODI, and so the lower run rates in ODI cricket may work in favour of lower-order players.

Margin (wickets)

T20

ODI

1

1%

6.1%

2

3%

7.3%

3

7%

8.7%

4

4%

11.1%

5

18%

14%

6

25%

19%

7

18%

17.2%

8

14%

12.5%

9

6%

5%

10

4%

2.6%

1 to 3 wickets

11%

22.2%

4 to 6 wickets

47%

44%

7 to 10 wickets

42%

37.3%

5 or more wickets

85%

70.3%

One in five ODI chases are completed with at most three wickets to spare. In T20, one in ten successful chases is completed with 7 or more wickets lost.

For games won by the team batting first, I calculated the margin of victory as a percentage of the target. The higher number of last-over finishes in T20s are obviously by virtue of the small number of overs. As a share of the target, the distribution of results is not dissimilar in the two limited-overs formats. (This data also considers only matches involving the top eight Test-playing teams from February 17, 2005 to April 1, 2014.)

The closest 10% of ODI matches won by the team batting first (33 matches) produced a margin of victory of upto 4.4%. The closest 10% of T20 matches won by the team batting first (12 matches) produced a margin of victory of up to 2.7%.

The data for the two charts above is in the table below.

Percentage of Target

Runs

Results

T20

ODI

T20

ODI

Closest

2.3%

4.4%

3

11

20

4.6%

7.7%

6

21

30

7.7%

10.9%

12

27

40

9.3%

15.1%

16

40

50

13.2%

18.7%

22

52

60

18.1%

24.9%

30

65

70

23.7%

31.2%

38

85

89

29%

37.7%

50

108

90

41.8%

46.1%

75

135

One-sided

56.5%

85.8%

104

259

The closeness and excitement of T20 games seems to be an artifact of the number of runs that can be scored off a single delivery and the small number of deliveries available for teams to play with. This also produces a greater role for luck (since, for example, the value of a single lucky edge to the boundary is much greater in the shorter format).

There is further evidence that shows the enhanced role of luck in T20 compared to ODIs. Since the start of T20, the strongest ODI side has won 65% of its games, while the weakest has won 28%. The strongest T20 side won 57% of its games while the weakest team won 39%. (These figures do not include games involving Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or the Associate Members.)

The record is similar if we only consider the last five years. The strongest ODI team won 62% of its games, while the weakest won only 27%. The strongest T20 team won 57% of its games while the weakest won 40%.

While weak teams tend to be weak in both T20 and ODIs, they win significantly larger number of T20s than they do ODIs. This suggests that the consequence of individual risk-taking paying off is greater in T20 than in ODIs.

So what is to be done? Bad teams win T20 games more often than they do ODI games. Fortune plays a larger role, bad bowlers bowl more in T20, bits-and-pieces players play more. The excitement of the final-over finish, which basically comes about due to the length of the contest and not because of anything either team is consciously doing. (It never does; no team plays to make games closer rather than to effect easy wins, notwithstanding MS Dhoni's apparent interest in taking run chases to the final over).

Is cricket possible over 20 overs? I think it is if the shortening of the game is managed well. I propose the following for T20:

1. Double the over quotas for each bowler to eight per innings. This will result in teams favouring better bowlers, and better batsmen.

2. Eliminate the batting Powerplay. Instead, introduce a bowling Powerplay of five consecutive overs in which the fielding side gets to play three additional fielders, giving the fielding captain 12 fielders to play with, instead of nine. This Powerplay should be taken at a time of the fielding captain's choosing. Substantively, allowing more fielders is not different from limiting what parts of the field can be patrolled by fielders. The latter has been common in all cricket since Bodyline at least.

3. During the remaining 15 overs of the game, the fielding side will have to revert to playing with 11 players (nine fielders). But during this time:

a) A boundary will be worth two runs instead of four.
b) Hitting the ball over the boundary will be worth three runs instead of six.
c) Missed catches or missed relay throws that cross the boundary will be worth four extra runs (or six in the case of a missed catch where the ball is parried over the boundary).

4. Give the batting side a maximum of six wickets (eight batsmen) to play with over 20 overs. (I will present evidence in a forthcoming post which shows why six wickets is a good number. Currently, I will point to fact that 6.7 wickets fall per completed T20 innings on average).

These rule changes will hopefully produce the following consequences:

1. Fielding captains will have more resources to play with.

2. Power-hitting will be rewarded, since hitting fours and sixes against better bowlers and 12 fielders increases the difficulty of hitting boundaries. Reducing the runs that accrue for reaching the boundary at other times increases the value of being able to reach the boundary during the Powerplay.

3. There may be the possibility of scoring more runs within the field of play than by hitting boundaries for 15 of the 20 overs.

4. Teams will have an incentive to play the best bowlers and best batsmen they can find. The incentive to compromise will be minimal.

Overall, shifting the balance towards the fielding side using the rule changes that I propose will produce a contest between bat and ball that is better balanced and might create measures of merit beyond outcomes in individual cases. This will go a long way towards making T20 a sport like cricket is.

i agree with you about 4 slips and bowler steaming in test, nothing better in cricket

or in india with 2 spinners & a handful of fielders around the bat, nothing better in cricket

watching mitchell johnson steam in and tear teams to shreds was thrilling cricket, as good or if not better than someone scoring a 200.it was brutal, the batsmen had no answer, great cricket

i love test cricket the most.

but i love the power hitting of modern cricket, before gilchrist and hayden the average score was 240-260 with only one 6 in the whole game, in 50/50 cricket
now thier are half a dozen 6's , the average score is 300 and teams chase them down.which was un heard of 10 years ago.

i love run chases in 20/20 and 50/50 cricket

nothing better in 50/50 or 20/20 than half a dozen 6's, a dozen 4's, a fast bowlers steaming in, a spinner showing his craft, 300 runs, being chased down in the final 2 overs.

not every game can keep to this script, but when it does its exciting

flickspin
on May 2, 2014, 7:24 GMT

@ jazer fahkruddin

would you really want to watch a game of batsmen scoring 1's & 2's, 4's & 6's are far entertaining.

people talk about the boring middle overs of a 50/50, overs 30-40 were batsmen hit 1's & 2's,

20/20 cricket has helped 50/50 become far more entertaining with average score being 300, the power hitting in overs 40-50 is as entertaining as cricket gets

in the recent 50/50 series between australia and india there was faulker smashing 70 runs off 50 balls to win a match, kohli smashing runs all over the joint and rohit sharma scoring a 200, it was the best 50/50 series i had seen in years.

plenty of runs, wickets and entertainment.

the new fielding restrictions make the game fair more entertaining, i love the amount of 4's & 6's

the only thing i dont like about 20/20 & 50/50 cricket is the 5 bowler, in 20/20 i would give 4 bowlers 5 overs each, in 50/50 cricket i would give 4 bowlers 13 overs each.

4 bowlers would make the middle overs far more entertaining

on May 2, 2014, 4:41 GMT

It's really boring to watch Bowlers are getting smashed all over and the game is for batsmen only. T20 is a slow death of cricket. The real cricket was when bowlers were with 4 slips and bowl is fast and swinging. Any given day a exciting test match or even ODI is more fun then watching boring T20 where all you see is 6 after 6 on flat pitch, short boundaries , small ground.Good luck to The future of cricket.

jokerbala
on May 1, 2014, 16:20 GMT

The more you invest in something the more is the payoff . Which is why close Test matches and ODIs to some extent have that epic battle feel compared to a T20 which is forgotten in a week or so even if it had a nail biting finish. But that is not to say T20 are not entertaining. If Test matches are like wives , ODI is a girl friend and T20s are one night stands.

CricStaah
on May 1, 2014, 15:18 GMT

I think cricket in general will get boring as long as we see the death of fast bowlers!
I blame small boundries/big bats/flat pitches for this!
Any format would be interesting if you had genuine fast bowlers in the game!
look at the ashes 2005 series - Eng team were fully loaded with quicks
the teams of old were great coz of this:
Pakistan - wasim waqar
Windies - walsh and Amrose or before the the 4 greats
ausies - magrath or b4 that lilly and tommo
india - mmmmmmmm prasad and Srinath??? looooool

on May 1, 2014, 14:19 GMT

How about looking at it from a spectators point of view, attention spans are tested more in an ODI than a T20. at least a one sided T20 is over quickly!

ultimatechamp_1
on May 1, 2014, 8:38 GMT

i didnt agrre with the changes wanted by the writer. 12 fielders are too many. it will cut the chances of hitting fours and batsmen will tend to take lesser risks and will not play aerial shots. 4 overs per bowler is fine as it poses a good challenge to the skippers to how to design their sides. a boundary worth 2 runs is insane. why will some one try to hit boundary when they can run 2 easily.
present format is good. let it be

on April 30, 2014, 12:14 GMT

@ First_slip
I do agree with your view point that T20 will never surpass the skill of Test crikcet but how can one simply say that T20 is not cricket?

jets786
on April 30, 2014, 12:09 GMT

I think the consensus shows that most are happy with the T20 format - the real question is what can be done to make full ODIs more exciting

Perhaps the solution is to have 2 innings of 20 overs each for a full day ODI. This would bring many advantages of the T20 format to ODIs - better bowlers will bowl more overs, better batsmen will bat twice, the game will still be 'live' at the halfway point, risk taking will still be encouraged, luck will still play a part in providing close finishes, whilst still providing scope for better teams to show their skill.

What do others think?

brusselslion
on April 30, 2014, 10:15 GMT

"Is cricket possible over 20 overs? I think it is if the shortening of the game is managed well." The inference presumably being that in its current form, T20 is unsustainable? This is utter nonsense. I much prefer Test & ODIs to T20, but it is difficult to argue that T20 is not popular. Does luck play a bigger part in T20s. Almost certainly; although I'd suggest that introducing changes along the lines proposed by the author, won't change that much. Will these changes somehow improve the shotmaking or bowling in T20? Will more people come through the turnstiles? In both cases, I'd suggest not. This is change for change's sake. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

flickspin
on May 2, 2014, 8:12 GMT

juzar fahkruddin

i agree with you about 4 slips and bowler steaming in test, nothing better in cricket

or in india with 2 spinners & a handful of fielders around the bat, nothing better in cricket

watching mitchell johnson steam in and tear teams to shreds was thrilling cricket, as good or if not better than someone scoring a 200.it was brutal, the batsmen had no answer, great cricket

i love test cricket the most.

but i love the power hitting of modern cricket, before gilchrist and hayden the average score was 240-260 with only one 6 in the whole game, in 50/50 cricket
now thier are half a dozen 6's , the average score is 300 and teams chase them down.which was un heard of 10 years ago.

i love run chases in 20/20 and 50/50 cricket

nothing better in 50/50 or 20/20 than half a dozen 6's, a dozen 4's, a fast bowlers steaming in, a spinner showing his craft, 300 runs, being chased down in the final 2 overs.

not every game can keep to this script, but when it does its exciting

flickspin
on May 2, 2014, 7:24 GMT

@ jazer fahkruddin

would you really want to watch a game of batsmen scoring 1's & 2's, 4's & 6's are far entertaining.

people talk about the boring middle overs of a 50/50, overs 30-40 were batsmen hit 1's & 2's,

20/20 cricket has helped 50/50 become far more entertaining with average score being 300, the power hitting in overs 40-50 is as entertaining as cricket gets

in the recent 50/50 series between australia and india there was faulker smashing 70 runs off 50 balls to win a match, kohli smashing runs all over the joint and rohit sharma scoring a 200, it was the best 50/50 series i had seen in years.

plenty of runs, wickets and entertainment.

the new fielding restrictions make the game fair more entertaining, i love the amount of 4's & 6's

the only thing i dont like about 20/20 & 50/50 cricket is the 5 bowler, in 20/20 i would give 4 bowlers 5 overs each, in 50/50 cricket i would give 4 bowlers 13 overs each.

4 bowlers would make the middle overs far more entertaining

on May 2, 2014, 4:41 GMT

It's really boring to watch Bowlers are getting smashed all over and the game is for batsmen only. T20 is a slow death of cricket. The real cricket was when bowlers were with 4 slips and bowl is fast and swinging. Any given day a exciting test match or even ODI is more fun then watching boring T20 where all you see is 6 after 6 on flat pitch, short boundaries , small ground.Good luck to The future of cricket.

jokerbala
on May 1, 2014, 16:20 GMT

The more you invest in something the more is the payoff . Which is why close Test matches and ODIs to some extent have that epic battle feel compared to a T20 which is forgotten in a week or so even if it had a nail biting finish. But that is not to say T20 are not entertaining. If Test matches are like wives , ODI is a girl friend and T20s are one night stands.

CricStaah
on May 1, 2014, 15:18 GMT

I think cricket in general will get boring as long as we see the death of fast bowlers!
I blame small boundries/big bats/flat pitches for this!
Any format would be interesting if you had genuine fast bowlers in the game!
look at the ashes 2005 series - Eng team were fully loaded with quicks
the teams of old were great coz of this:
Pakistan - wasim waqar
Windies - walsh and Amrose or before the the 4 greats
ausies - magrath or b4 that lilly and tommo
india - mmmmmmmm prasad and Srinath??? looooool

on May 1, 2014, 14:19 GMT

How about looking at it from a spectators point of view, attention spans are tested more in an ODI than a T20. at least a one sided T20 is over quickly!

ultimatechamp_1
on May 1, 2014, 8:38 GMT

i didnt agrre with the changes wanted by the writer. 12 fielders are too many. it will cut the chances of hitting fours and batsmen will tend to take lesser risks and will not play aerial shots. 4 overs per bowler is fine as it poses a good challenge to the skippers to how to design their sides. a boundary worth 2 runs is insane. why will some one try to hit boundary when they can run 2 easily.
present format is good. let it be

on April 30, 2014, 12:14 GMT

@ First_slip
I do agree with your view point that T20 will never surpass the skill of Test crikcet but how can one simply say that T20 is not cricket?

jets786
on April 30, 2014, 12:09 GMT

I think the consensus shows that most are happy with the T20 format - the real question is what can be done to make full ODIs more exciting

Perhaps the solution is to have 2 innings of 20 overs each for a full day ODI. This would bring many advantages of the T20 format to ODIs - better bowlers will bowl more overs, better batsmen will bat twice, the game will still be 'live' at the halfway point, risk taking will still be encouraged, luck will still play a part in providing close finishes, whilst still providing scope for better teams to show their skill.

What do others think?

brusselslion
on April 30, 2014, 10:15 GMT

"Is cricket possible over 20 overs? I think it is if the shortening of the game is managed well." The inference presumably being that in its current form, T20 is unsustainable? This is utter nonsense. I much prefer Test & ODIs to T20, but it is difficult to argue that T20 is not popular. Does luck play a bigger part in T20s. Almost certainly; although I'd suggest that introducing changes along the lines proposed by the author, won't change that much. Will these changes somehow improve the shotmaking or bowling in T20? Will more people come through the turnstiles? In both cases, I'd suggest not. This is change for change's sake. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

imtiazjaleel
on April 30, 2014, 7:38 GMT

T20, ODI and Tests are all exciting, when the both teams play hard and the result is unpredictable as who will win till the end. I don't want to see a match where one team is rolled over by the other.Its not the format it is the competitiveness which is more important and appealing. How many matches has been interesting in the ongoing IPL. So, it is not a guarantee that every T20 match is a hit.

bzzd
on April 30, 2014, 4:34 GMT

T20 is a poor imitation of cricket. Baseball is a much better game than T20.

its.rachit
on April 29, 2014, 16:03 GMT

I would request Kartikeya to please go through the comments ... Of the numerous atricles written by him in the recent past, recent have disagreed with him on most occassions ... and one of the reason is that not only does he contradict himself in different articles, he suggestions/take on the game are illogical on many occassions ... I just dont understand why people cant accept T20 the ay it is and for what it is ... it is a form of cricket which players enjoy, people enjoy and is more beneficial to everyone ... mind you, it is better to match a hopelessly one sided T20 match for 3 hours than a one sided Test match over 3.5 days ... not to say that T20 is better, they all have their pros and cons ... and the argument that T20 reduces the skill of players, well good players adopt to all 3 forms ... kohli, AB, Steyn, KP do well in all 3 formats ... so let us sit back and enjoy Tests, ODIs and T20 for the different kind of joy they give us ...

MiddleStump
on April 29, 2014, 15:46 GMT

During the recent T20 World Cup, I stopped watching most matches before the 10th over of the second innings. The result was almost a formality from that point on. By the 6th over, both Australia and New Zealand had virtually lost their matches. Even the final was one sided once India made 130 and only the stumbles by Sri Lanka made it close until the 17th over. If a game cannot hold an audience even for 2 1/2 hours, its future is shaky.There is only so much that short boundaries, fireworks, and cheer leaders can do to retain interest.

on April 29, 2014, 14:55 GMT

T20 helps cricket to become a global sport.I think odis should be removed and there should be only 2 formats t20 and 3 day tests.ICC should increase t20 matches. it helps in globalisation of cricket.

IndTheBest
on April 29, 2014, 13:16 GMT

Cricket is a games of bat, ball and fielding. That's what you find in all the three formats of the games. Though there are basic differences and skills required to play each one of them, which you all know. With current time and fan's busy schedule T20 is rather a savior and need to expand the games beyond it's limit. Player should specialized the game format(s) and play whatever works for them and not complain if they can't adjust or play all the formats. I even suggest another change in T20 to have two separate teams for batting and fielding (similar to American football) to give their best and test the skill and entertain us.

first_slip
on April 29, 2014, 12:18 GMT

call me old school, but no way that T20 can beat ODIs ever. T20 is just not cricket

flickspin
on April 29, 2014, 10:22 GMT

i love test matches the most, followed by 50/50 cricket, followed by 20/20 cricket

most commentators complain about the modern game,you hear all the time that:

the bats are too big

the boundaries are too small

theirs to many 6's and 4's

the teams are weak and of lesser standard

thier are no swing bowlers or no reverse swing bowlers

fast bowlings weak

the switch hit is unfair

the batsmen has helmets and protection

batsmen have poor techniques

batsmen have no defence

because of helmets batsmen play off the front foot

and batsmen pull off the front foot

i love the modern game, before matt hayden and adam gilchrist you were lucky to see a 6 a game, the modern game has a faster run rate than ever before.and is far more entertaining

the best batsmen still average around 50, and the best bowlers still avaerage under 25,

the only part of 20/20 & 50/50 i dont like is the 5th bowler, i would give 4 bowlers 5 overs each in 20/20, and give 4 bowlers 13 overs in 50/50

on April 29, 2014, 10:14 GMT

The only rule change I would be excited to see would be a higher over limit for the bowlers. I feel like T20 doesn't need much tinkering, though the quality would be a bit higher if the better bowlers could bowl a few more overs and hence open up and bowl a proper spell at the death. I'd love to see 2 of the bowlers in any innings be allowed a limit of say 6 overs. You'd get a few more overs from quality bowlers, and you'd be able to play one more batter in each side as you'd only need to use 4 bowlers if you chose to. So batting and bowling would be strengthened with that move.

ThinkingCricket
on April 29, 2014, 9:41 GMT

Your suggestions amount to a 20 over gimmick Test. Your proposals stem from your idea that rewarding anything other than that which is rewarded in Tests is a problem in need of fixing. That's why you persist in this maddeningly inflammatory rhetoric about 'T-20 is not a sport'. It is a sport, it just rewards things other than Test Cricket does.

No one will ever tolerate gimmicks that alter the fundamental rules. 11 man teams, running gets you the runs you run, boundaries are 4 and clearing the ropes are 6. That will never change and shouldn't.

Your rules just disincentivize hitting, and reward wicket preservation in a 20 over game. No one wants to see a 20 over Test, and that includes people who prefer Tests to T-20. The beauty of T-20 is that hitting is rewarded and wicket preservation is not relevant, changing that just makes T-20 a pale imitation of Tests. As it stands, it's qualitatively different and that's why so many people love it.

py0alb
on April 29, 2014, 9:16 GMT

T20 cricket has been played for decades. It is absolutely perfect as it is. If you tried to impose these ridiculous changes you would make the professional game unrecognisable from traditional T20 cricket. In short, it wouldn't even be cricket at all, you might as well play baseball.

9ST9
on April 29, 2014, 9:11 GMT

These are very good proposals, but I doubt administrators will want to tweak a successful format. Other than brevity another factor that has made T20 popular is its simplicity. ODI rules became far too complicated for the common man to follow. The fact that the weaker teams stand a better chance in T20, indicates that it is not truly a test of skill agreed, but from a fan's perspective it provides more *entertainment* which is the buzzword nowadays. Assume Football games lasted for longer instead of 1.5 hours , then I think probably Portugal would have beaten Greece in the 2004 Euro final. I think 'longer the game, better the chance for the stronger team' applies to any game - not cricket itself.

Harlequin.
on April 29, 2014, 8:52 GMT

Interesting analysis of the T20 vs ODI, I would also add (although it is hard to quantify) that it feels like you can predict the result of 50% of T20's by the first 5 overs, which makes many games pointless to watch all the way through. A good example was the RCB vs KXIP yesterday where 4 overs into the match, it was clear who the winner would be. There is not enough time to rectify a poor period of the game.

However, those suggestions at the end about changing T20's. I don't even know where to start with those, but it reminds me of Blernsball...

ODI_BestFormOfCricket
on April 29, 2014, 7:56 GMT

definitely yes. Another thing that author forget was t20 also far exciting than test matches too. It is t20 vs test, not t20vsodi bcz odi is well established and watched by many than near extinct test matches.

No featured comments at the moment.

ODI_BestFormOfCricket
on April 29, 2014, 7:56 GMT

definitely yes. Another thing that author forget was t20 also far exciting than test matches too. It is t20 vs test, not t20vsodi bcz odi is well established and watched by many than near extinct test matches.

Harlequin.
on April 29, 2014, 8:52 GMT

Interesting analysis of the T20 vs ODI, I would also add (although it is hard to quantify) that it feels like you can predict the result of 50% of T20's by the first 5 overs, which makes many games pointless to watch all the way through. A good example was the RCB vs KXIP yesterday where 4 overs into the match, it was clear who the winner would be. There is not enough time to rectify a poor period of the game.

However, those suggestions at the end about changing T20's. I don't even know where to start with those, but it reminds me of Blernsball...

9ST9
on April 29, 2014, 9:11 GMT

These are very good proposals, but I doubt administrators will want to tweak a successful format. Other than brevity another factor that has made T20 popular is its simplicity. ODI rules became far too complicated for the common man to follow. The fact that the weaker teams stand a better chance in T20, indicates that it is not truly a test of skill agreed, but from a fan's perspective it provides more *entertainment* which is the buzzword nowadays. Assume Football games lasted for longer instead of 1.5 hours , then I think probably Portugal would have beaten Greece in the 2004 Euro final. I think 'longer the game, better the chance for the stronger team' applies to any game - not cricket itself.

py0alb
on April 29, 2014, 9:16 GMT

T20 cricket has been played for decades. It is absolutely perfect as it is. If you tried to impose these ridiculous changes you would make the professional game unrecognisable from traditional T20 cricket. In short, it wouldn't even be cricket at all, you might as well play baseball.

ThinkingCricket
on April 29, 2014, 9:41 GMT

Your suggestions amount to a 20 over gimmick Test. Your proposals stem from your idea that rewarding anything other than that which is rewarded in Tests is a problem in need of fixing. That's why you persist in this maddeningly inflammatory rhetoric about 'T-20 is not a sport'. It is a sport, it just rewards things other than Test Cricket does.

No one will ever tolerate gimmicks that alter the fundamental rules. 11 man teams, running gets you the runs you run, boundaries are 4 and clearing the ropes are 6. That will never change and shouldn't.

Your rules just disincentivize hitting, and reward wicket preservation in a 20 over game. No one wants to see a 20 over Test, and that includes people who prefer Tests to T-20. The beauty of T-20 is that hitting is rewarded and wicket preservation is not relevant, changing that just makes T-20 a pale imitation of Tests. As it stands, it's qualitatively different and that's why so many people love it.

on April 29, 2014, 10:14 GMT

The only rule change I would be excited to see would be a higher over limit for the bowlers. I feel like T20 doesn't need much tinkering, though the quality would be a bit higher if the better bowlers could bowl a few more overs and hence open up and bowl a proper spell at the death. I'd love to see 2 of the bowlers in any innings be allowed a limit of say 6 overs. You'd get a few more overs from quality bowlers, and you'd be able to play one more batter in each side as you'd only need to use 4 bowlers if you chose to. So batting and bowling would be strengthened with that move.

flickspin
on April 29, 2014, 10:22 GMT

i love test matches the most, followed by 50/50 cricket, followed by 20/20 cricket

most commentators complain about the modern game,you hear all the time that:

the bats are too big

the boundaries are too small

theirs to many 6's and 4's

the teams are weak and of lesser standard

thier are no swing bowlers or no reverse swing bowlers

fast bowlings weak

the switch hit is unfair

the batsmen has helmets and protection

batsmen have poor techniques

batsmen have no defence

because of helmets batsmen play off the front foot

and batsmen pull off the front foot

i love the modern game, before matt hayden and adam gilchrist you were lucky to see a 6 a game, the modern game has a faster run rate than ever before.and is far more entertaining

the best batsmen still average around 50, and the best bowlers still avaerage under 25,

the only part of 20/20 & 50/50 i dont like is the 5th bowler, i would give 4 bowlers 5 overs each in 20/20, and give 4 bowlers 13 overs in 50/50

first_slip
on April 29, 2014, 12:18 GMT

call me old school, but no way that T20 can beat ODIs ever. T20 is just not cricket

IndTheBest
on April 29, 2014, 13:16 GMT

Cricket is a games of bat, ball and fielding. That's what you find in all the three formats of the games. Though there are basic differences and skills required to play each one of them, which you all know. With current time and fan's busy schedule T20 is rather a savior and need to expand the games beyond it's limit. Player should specialized the game format(s) and play whatever works for them and not complain if they can't adjust or play all the formats. I even suggest another change in T20 to have two separate teams for batting and fielding (similar to American football) to give their best and test the skill and entertain us.

on April 29, 2014, 14:55 GMT

T20 helps cricket to become a global sport.I think odis should be removed and there should be only 2 formats t20 and 3 day tests.ICC should increase t20 matches. it helps in globalisation of cricket.